The Criterion Collection

[El Sleezo]

Originally Posted by SpookyDollhouse

You forgot the Fellini set edition

CC40 also has 8 1/2.

[Rayjg]

Cage match tag team: Duke and Demon vs Criterion and Synapse. Crtierion and Synapse agree to release every title they’ve sat on for 10 years or longer if, when, they lose

[mande2013]

I have the Punch-Drunk Love CC Blu-ray and the digital 4K DV version on iTunes/Apple, so I’ll probably hold off on the CC UHD for now.

I’d have blind bought King Lear in an earlier epoch, but I’ll probably wait for a Criterion Channel run to watch it first.

Shockingly, I’ve never actually seen any of the other films in January’s slate (Cronos included), and like Cremildo I’ve put a moratorium on blind buys.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I think some of use wouldn’t be surprised if you put together a homemade samurai armor and just tried to storm them. Demanding they release only Japanese movies until you’re satisfied.

Ok, I'm officially ready to go.

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Duke leaving Criterion's HQ

Hopefully this will be my face when leaving...

Originally Posted by Azores26

Don't forget to ask for "The Man Who Stole The Sun"! Thanks man, good luck there

That's one of my most wanted, but the samurai sword will do nothing to sway them as they don't have the movie.

Originally Posted by WillieMLF

I think you may have hung out in the DarkForce thread too much, and what Defalco has is spreading...

Man, they lied to me. I was told it wasn't contagious and I would be fine going in there.

Originally Posted by Rayjg

Cage match tag team: Duke and Demon vs Criterion and Synapse. Crtierion and Synapse agree to release every title they’ve sat on for 10 years or longer if, when, they lose

If it means getting Hunter in the Dark out, I'd team up with Demon Dave in a second in a steel cage match against Lee Kline and Don May Jr. Four men enter, two men leave.

[amputd]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Good evening everyone. It's a slow news day and I've had some thoughts rattling around in my mind in the last 48 hours, so I figured it was time for a yearly rant against Criterion. Key word being rant. I'm not here to argue with anyone, or trying to ruffle feathers, there are just some things I feel like getting off my chest. Some might have 1000 reasons to defend Criterion, but for me there are a 1000 reasons why those arguments won't change my mind, and it's the 1000 films Criterion has the rights to that have no HD disc period.

Some will argue that streaming and physical rights are different, and they ARE. However, Criterion is the one company that covers its basis and it's might rare where a film that's streaming on their channel that opens up with Janus logo is released by someone else. Criterion has been in this business for a very long time and will cover their behinds. Some will argue that a lot of the films have subpar transfers. Sure, some do, but MOST don't. Almost everything on their channel streaming in HD looks pretty good. Better than what some other labels continue to release. Some even have pristine 4K transfers, but because Criterion has a "method" to their releasing, they are in a queue waiting their turn that might never come.

Let me preface by saying that I USED to love Criterion. When I first got into film collecting Criterion was king. When I heard Criterion the rights to a film I enjoyed I was like "Nice! That's going to get a DVD in no time!". Now when I hear Criterion has the rights to a film I like the thoughts are something like "Damn you Criterion. Damn you to Hell!!!" (an exaggeration, but only slightly)

The fact of the matter is Criterion is no longer king of the labels. You have other labels like Arrow, Radiance, Eureka, Indicator, 88 Films, and hell, even Kino at times with better encodes/compression/authoring on their discs than Criterion. Criterion getting lapped around by other labels releasing the films they have had the rights to forever, often with better encodes and even better features.

Criterion also has the model of releasing about five releases a month with boxsets seemingly a thing of the past for the most part. November, their biggest month of the year was a month full of 4K upgrades with the exception of one title. Lets take a look at January, we are getting The Grifters. Nice film that deserves a 4K. Problem is, there goes 20% of your monthly output to a title that already has a Blu-ray. Title seems like a better fit for Kino where it would only be about about 6% of their monthly output. Criterion also picked up the titles Kino released on 4K it seems. So guess what? Expect those on 4K in the near future and more slots to things that don't have titles!

This isn't a case where Criterion isn't releasing the titles I want. (Although, I would love that) This is a case of Criterion not releasing films that don't have ANY release. I mentioned No Country for Old Men a few days ago and it was mentioned that only Criterion has been able to get them to sit down and talk about their movies. Sure, it's nice to get that, but at the end of the day, priority should always be the films. Getting the films out there for audiences to watch on disc, versus getting lost on a streaming channel that many don't have. As mentioned before Criterion has the rights to A LOT of films without any sort of release.

The fact remains, Criterion is going to release No Country For Old Men, before Le Deuxieme Souffle because of money. You're going to get a TON more sales on the former title than the latter. Does Pan's Laybrinth need ANOTHER release? Shit no, but it's going to sell better than Gohatto. I'm not saying Criterion should abandon the better selling titles completely, wish there was more focus on the catalogue of films that are being neglected.

Not saying Criterion is without merits. They still take some chances, and they have my appreciation for titles like Demon Pond, Eastern Condors, and a few others. Even titles I loved like The Roaring 20's could have been released by someone like WB themselves, as their encodes are almost comparable. It's not like it once was once upon a time, as some of the studios like Sony do a better job with their encodes than Criterion.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I think the frustration comes because Criterion was by far my favorite label for many years. But Criterion, while still an important label, has a lot of competition these days. In a lot of areas they have been surpassed by one or more of their competitors.

- encodes (not always optimal)
- sitting on titles (100’s of unreleased films)
- packaging (often doesn’t consider the needs of collectors)
- special features (used to be the leader/ now often outdone)
- laziness (releasing a lot of 4k titles in SDR)
- redundancy (releasing films that already have good 4k or blu ray releases)

I’ve also emailed them about my concerns and really don’t feel they were very interested. When I mentioned a recent release had packaging that was unweildly, they suggested I purchase some regular cases from them for the discs. That kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.

Criterion still have the capacity to delight and surprise with their releases, but increasingly I want my favorite films to be picked up by one of the boutique labels if I want the definitive release.

[Scottie]

All cardboard free

[starman15317]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Drugstore Cowboy is another major acquisition in my opinion. Anyone knows if it's Lionsgate they're licensing it from, or could it be someone else?

I agree, very exciting release. I have the Imprint Blu-ray and it's licensed from Lionsgate (though that doesn't mean much since it's an Australian release). The U.S. digital rights on Vudu also show Lionsgate as the owner.

[starman15317]

And while I've never seen Godard's King Lear, it's always very exciting these days to still get not-on-DVD films released on disc.

[mande2013]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

For some reason, 4k is driving certain people insane.

Well it’s a bunch of things I think. 4K has ushered in physical home video shifting almost entirely to a collector’s market, so there’s been an emphasis on costly editions that often offer a minimal upgrade over already solid Blu-ray releases. So yes, the cost of UHD is obviously an issue, and it often seems to be more about exploiting videophiles/collectors rather than about improving the cinephile’s experience by expanding what’s easily available on home video the way it was at the height of the Blu-ray era. Not to mention all the QC issues (the Mexico plant, etc). The 4K era is just a ticking time bomb of multiple frustrations that weren’t present when Blu-ray was the most premium format in town.

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by Somebuddy

I'd 100% get Drugstore Cowboy if i didn't already have the Imprint edition. One of the greatest movies of the 1980s!

I have the Imprint too, and while I'm not trying to challenge your love for this film, there's no way I can resist a restoration with deleted scenes.

Criterion finally answered my prayer from 15 years ago. Hang in there guys - miracles can happen!

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

I mainly had it to watch all of the Japanese films on there at the time. Once I watched them all I cancelled. They still add Japanese films, but now I can find them all online for free with subtitles (Just not always in HD) as a lot more sites exist now that have have these films versus years ago when options were less available.

Duke, I respect your long rant and agree with a lot of it (even though I've mercifully chosen a follow up quote by you and not the unspoilered epic one as others are doing), but I really feel that Criterion has seen the future and it is their streaming channel, not Blu or 4K discs. Although they may pay a lot of lip service to supporting physical media, I sincerely believe they have embraced the simplicity and economical format of streaming and that most of the titles many of us would like to see released by them on disc will now be reserved for their channel platform. I don't say any of this to label them as a sell out, I say it in a realistic view of what makes the most sense for them as a COMPANY rather than a non-profit film school, which they are not. Running and curating a subscription based TV channel represents a lot of advantages to them right now in our current economy and dwindling physical market.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by jshaide

Eh

Meh.

Nothing in this newly announced batch that I would ever see getting a lot of repeat watches in my collection.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by mande2013

Well it’s a bunch of things I think. 4K has ushered in physical home video shifting almost entirely to a collector’s market, so there’s been an emphasis on costly editions that often offer a minimal upgrade over already solid Blu-ray releases. So yes, the cost of UHD is obviously an issue, and it often seems to be more about exploiting videophiles/collectors rather than about improving the cinephile’s experience by expanding what’s easily available on home video the way it was at the height of the Blu-ray era. Not to mention all the QC issues (the Mexico plant, etc). The 4K era is just a ticking time bomb of multiple frustrations that weren’t present when Blu-ray was the most premium format in town.

I get that, but 4k didn’t usher in physical media being a collector’s market. Streaming did. Most consumers need an affirmative reason to buy physical media. And clearly they believe 4k is providing that reason for a lot of people or they’d just slap them up on the channel. And yes, there’s a business imperative because it IS a business. But if it’s gonna fund that Ranown box, that Sembene box, that Rohmer box, that Araki box, even that huge Underground Railroad set? Fine. Hell, 3 versions of Pat Garrett. (I only bring that up bc of Togo’s actual insane claim that Criterion’s abandoned box sets. I’m sure he’s not gonna count the 40th box for some reason, even though it’s gonna be a fantastic starting point for a lot of film lovers for years.)

And every label has had the same amount of QC issues. Every major, every boutique. There’s not enough plants to go around and even the big labels are consolidating. Less time, less people, less resources. Physical media is holding on by its fingernails.

I’m not saying everything is perfect, but dammit, god bless them for making films and home media such a desirable thing that the TikTok generation is willing to stand in line for eight hours to grab a copy of Paris is Burning or Dogfight. That’s a victory. That’s what you get from curation and a little from column A and a little from column B.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Duke, I respect your long rant and agree with a lot of it (even though I've mercifully chosen a follow up quote by you and not the unspoilered epic one as others are doing), but I really feel that Criterion has seen the future and it is their streaming channel, not Blu or 4K discs. Although they may pay a lot of lip service to supporting physical media, I sincerely believe they have embraced the simplicity and economical format of streaming and that most of the titles many of us would like to see released by them on disc will now be reserved for their channel platform. I don't say any of this to label them as a sell out, I say it in a realistic view of what makes the most sense for them as a COMPANY rather than a non-profit film school, which they are not. Running and curating a subscription based TV channel represents a lot of advantages to them right now in our current economy and dwindling physical market.

I don't know how sustainable that channel is in the long run with the competition of streaming services. Sure, Criterion isn't in this business to curate from the bottom of their hearts, but in the long run if Criterions channel flounders, many of the films will be dispersed in the wind. If there is a physical product there is always a chance someone will pick it up second hand a discover something they may not be able to. I still see the physical format as essential, at least to the preservation of film.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by mande2013

Well it’s a bunch of things I think. 4K has ushered in physical home video shifting almost entirely to a collector’s market, so there’s been an emphasis on costly editions that often offer a minimal upgrade over already solid Blu-ray releases. So yes, the cost of UHD is obviously an issue, and it often seems to be more about exploiting videophiles/collectors rather than about improving the cinephile’s experience by expanding what’s easily available on home video the way it was at the height of the Blu-ray era. Not to mention all the QC issues (the Mexico plant, etc). The 4K era is just a ticking time bomb of multiple frustrations that weren’t present when Blu-ray was the most premium format in town.

This says it. It's turning the hobby into a rich boy's club and will self-implode sooner rather than later. On the other hand, Blus had hit a saturation point and likely wouldn't have led the hobby into any better place either. So pay for those worthless stickers and key chains and art cards now if it's a movie you really want to own because as Pike Bishop says in THE WILD BUNCH, "Those days are closing fast."

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

I don't know how sustainable that channel is in the long run with the competition of streaming services. Sure, Criterion isn't in this business to curate from the bottom of their hearts, but in the long run if Criterions channel flounders, many of the films will be dispersed in the wind. If there is a physical product there is always a chance someone will pick it up second hand a discover something they may not be able to. I still see the physical format as essential, at least to preservation of film.

But the "preservation of film" is not really Criterion's job and regardless, it can't happen without revenue and even if their streaming channel can't work its way through the jungles of competition, they will still need to find a sustainable model to keep their affection for film prospering through some kind of marketable product. Right now I see streaming being more viable than discs, but you might be right about the channel ultimately failing too.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Duke, I respect your long rant and agree with a lot of it (even though I've mercifully chosen a follow up quote by you and not the unspoilered epic one as others are doing), but I really feel that Criterion has seen the future and it is their streaming channel, not Blu or 4K discs. Although they may pay a lot of lip service to supporting physical media, I sincerely believe they have embraced the simplicity and economical format of streaming and that most of the titles many of us would like to see released by them on disc will now be reserved for their channel platform. I don't say any of this to label them as a sell out, I say it in a realistic view of what makes the most sense for them as a COMPANY rather than a non-profit film school, which they are not. Running and curating a subscription based TV channel represents a lot of advantages to them right now in our current economy and dwindling physical market.

Yep, and I think having hundreds of titles that are exclusive to that platform and not on disc helps increase subscriptions to it. If everything was on disc, then there's fewer things they can point to as reasons to subscribe. It's only going to get worse. As long as they can develop an app that isn't complete garbage (ex Paramount Plus) I am kind of OK with this.

[Number_6]

Originally Posted by amputd

I pretty much agree with all of this. I think the frustration comes because Criterion was by far my favorite label for many years. But Criterion, while still an important label, has a lot of competition these days. In a lot of areas they have been surpassed by one or more of their competitors.

- encodes (not always optimal)
- sitting on titles (100’s of unreleased films)
- packaging (often doesn’t consider the needs of collectors)
- special features (used to be the leader/ now often outdone)
- laziness (releasing a lot of 4k titles in SDR)
- redundancy (releasing films that already have good 4k or blu ray releases)

I’ve also emailed them about my concerns and really don’t feel they were very interested. When I mentioned a recent release had packaging that was unweildly, they suggested I purchase some regular cases from them for the discs. That kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.

Criterion still have the capacity to delight and surprise with their releases, but increasingly I want my favorite films to be picked up by one of the boutique labels if I want the definitive release.

Can't say that surprises me.

And agree on the points you mention. As much as I like what Criterion brings to the table, I've been increasingly feeling that they are kind of coasting on the reputation as a premium boutique label.

[mande2013]

I don't see the Criterion Channel failing anytime soon honestly, and I think there's an "if you build it they'll come" factor to its success. It fills way too vital a niche in the present media landscape to fail. If Criterion could be a successful distribution company at the height of the DVD era releasing things like Il Posto and Closely Watched Trains then there's no reason their streaming service can't be sustainable in the present environment provided they're not financially dumb in the way they manage it. Mubi's streaming service, which fills an overlapping niche with Criterion's service, seems quite successful so...

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by Number_6

Can't say that surprises me.

And agree on the points you mention. As much as I like what Criterion brings to the table, I've been increasingly feeling that they are kind of coasting on the reputation as a premium boutique label.

SDR is not about laziness. I don't know where this got started. Some labels are artificially adding HDR. The Toho encode of Seven Samurai did not have HDR. When they do add it after the fact, that's a gimmick that literally adds nothing. And some filmmakers - Sofia Coppola on Virgin Suicides - are specifically asking to forego HDR passes.

I've talked to guys working on Criterion titles enough that the notion that they just punted on something is laughable. One may disagree and that's fair, but good grief, they will debate people till they're blue in the face because they've thought about this stuff, usually to an exhausting degree.